Recommended Posts
QuoteI was reminded to say:
Neener neener neener!!!
"I am so smart! I am so smart!
S - M - R - T !
I mean S - M - A - R - T !"
One of the all-time best Simpsons moments. Thank you for reminding me.
---Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
chuckakers 370
QuoteNotice that in none of these statements did Clinton, Albright, etc. give Saddam a couple of weeks to get out of town before they would launch a full-scale ground assault.
Couple weeks? Here we go again - statements that try desperately to create truth when there simply is none. Bush gave that demonic moron plenty of warning. In fact, every time Saddam found out the findings of the U.N. Security Council (18 plus times he was found out of compliance with U.N. resolutions) he was warned. By the letter of the "international law" so to speak, we were justified after the FIRST breach of compliance. If he had half a brain, he would've put down his whips, given up the mansions, grabbed a billion or so in cash, and rode outta town on a lifetime va-ca.
QuoteHmm, yes it was governmental policy as of 1998 to support regime change in Iraq. Support, like maybe giving Iraqi freedom fighters some backing? But then again, that wouldn't afford us any lucrative contracts on post-war oil revenues.
Now THAT's entertainment! Ever heard of Kuwait, lib-lips? We put out the fires your buddy Saddam lit, then left the whole country swimming in money AND liberty.
Just a thought. And sorry about that lib-lips remark.
QuoteTurtlespeed, you are not getting my point:
Quote
Bush led your country into war on false pretenses. The fact that many other people on both sides of the political fence agreed with him (I won't get into any timeline issues, or the fact that there were other option then going in and starting an invasion) doesn't really matter, it still made him wrong.
The current administration told you that Iraq could launch an attack immediately against mainland US. it told you that it knew exactly where 100 to 500 tons of WMD were.The original reasons for going to war were not true. they fucked up about that. Just because Clinton or any other democrat believed it as well, does not make it any less wrong.Quote
Bullshit!! Show me one source on this.Note that I am not mentioning anything about intentions by the current administration.Quote
Yes, but it doesn't absolve them of responsibility which they are attempting to do.
It remains that Bush fucked up. I find it actually quite comical to watch so many people jump though hoops to deny that fact.Turtlespeed, just look up the statements made my Mr Powel (probably the administration's biggest "opponent" to the invasion) exactly one year ago in front of the UN. Those statement were presented as fact, not as possibilities based on sketchy intelligence.Quote
You don't KNOW that. According to Tenet, David Kay wasn't entirely truthful in his assesment of the scope of the search.
Out of all his statements, one turned out to be true. Iraq did have missiles that could go further than the sanctioned 93 miles. They could go further by a full 20 miles.
They fucked up. Now it will be fun watching people jump through hoops and shooting loudly that other people were wrong as well as if that somehow deminishes the original fact.
PS. statements about how 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton had done his job can easily be refuted by statements that 9/11 would not have happened if the FBI had done its job much later on the timeline.
Please see Kallend for a lecture on where the buck stops.
chuckakers 370
QuoteWe found mass graves in Kosovo too Chuck. You didn't hear alot of Repbulicans screaming "yay, we freed the Kosovoars!" did you Chuck? No. How many American lives did we lose in that one Chuck? Zero. How many mass graves do you think we'd find in say Columbia chuck? What about Indonesia? Oh wait, we like those dictators...
Angry little liberal, isn't he. As far as I'm concerned we SHOULD help free these and ANY oppressed people on the globe. Unfortunately, the libs are so wrapped up in "no-war" (at least when a Republican is in office) that we don't dare do anything unless the country in question combines the daily horror placed upon their citizens with, oh...I dunno...something like THE PRODUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND THE CLEAR INTENT TO PRODUCE NUCLEAR ONES!!
And by the way, you'd be hard pressed to find a soldier in Iraq that wouldn't die doing what they're doing over there - just a little thought from the troops in the trenches.
nice liberal....easy boy...
QuoteGM, I hope you have actually read some stuff about that Sudan wanting to hand Osama over thing and realize that it wasn't quite as simple as "here take him" and "no we don't want him." I know you have but you don't present the whole story here.
Benny, please report to Prof. Kallend for a lecture on where the buck stops.
benny 0
Chuck, I'm proud of you. You're telling me you supported the Kosovo action right? Good, at least you're consistent. Now, start lobbying your Congressmen and President to invade every other dictatorship in the world, we can start with Saudi Arabia, it's close to Iraq.
And Chuck, they haven't actually found any weapons or anything other than "weapons of mass destruction related programs" or whatever that means. Yeah I'm angry, no more angry than Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh or Ken Starr was during Clinton's Presidency. Of course, Clinton didn't launch full scale ground invasions of countries either.
And ok, the UN resolution thing has been argued before, and as I and others have pointed out before, Iraq hasn't been the only nation to ignore UN resolutions. Hell, we can hardly seem to manage enough respect for the organization to pay our dues.
Hey, I think Saddam was a dick as much as the next guy, but there's got to be more too it than that or we'd invade everywhere. So they told us he was a threat to us with his big bad WMD, well, where are they?
And Chuck, they haven't actually found any weapons or anything other than "weapons of mass destruction related programs" or whatever that means. Yeah I'm angry, no more angry than Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh or Ken Starr was during Clinton's Presidency. Of course, Clinton didn't launch full scale ground invasions of countries either.
And ok, the UN resolution thing has been argued before, and as I and others have pointed out before, Iraq hasn't been the only nation to ignore UN resolutions. Hell, we can hardly seem to manage enough respect for the organization to pay our dues.
Hey, I think Saddam was a dick as much as the next guy, but there's got to be more too it than that or we'd invade everywhere. So they told us he was a threat to us with his big bad WMD, well, where are they?
chuckakers 370
QuoteEven if that is true, which it might well be. That still did not make him a clear and present danger who, at a moment's notice, could bomb the US with a WMD.
So you prefer to wait until Saddam "totally freakin' mad" Hussain HAS nuclear weapons? Hasn't the evil Korean midget dictator taught you anything?
QuoteVery true, but also a very mute point. I am sure it makes you feel good about going to war, but for the millionth time, that was not one of the stated reasons for going to war.
It's not a mute point if you're the one doing the dancing. We've made a lot of friends in the last year or. Just not with the socialists.
QuoteThe war was justified because they were dancing in the steet????
To that i can only quote from your own post:
Aah - a lib favorite...take a statement and make it say whatever they want. It's called the English language, Dekker. Read it as it was written and you will see that I didn't say that dancing in the streets was the justification for the war - only that it was evidence (along with hundreds of other examples) of the justification - FREEDOM!!
oh yeah, then there's that whole terrorist training camp in the Iraqi desert thing...forgot about that I suppose.
chuckakers 370
benny, you goin' soft on me?
Quote
oh yeah, then there's that whole terrorist training camp in the Iraqi desert thing...forgot about that I suppose.
Shoot, wasn't gonna post to this thread anymore... oh well, had a pretty productive work day, so here goes...
You mean the one that was in the northern no-fly zone? Yeah, you could say that the no-fly zone didn't preclude ground attacks by Iraqi forces against it if they wanted the camp out of there so bad, but I would argue that our protection of the kurds was UNINTENTIONAL protection of the same camp....
but whatever, now we are just debating minor, minor points... whatevah!
__________________________________________________
What would Vic Mackey do?
benny 0
Quotebenny, you goin' soft on me?
Where did I go soft? Shit man, just because I think Saddam was a bad guy doesn't change the fact that he was/is less of a threat to my personal liberty than GWB is. One simple thing could have prevented 9-11, coordinate the "do not allow to fly" list with the list of suspected terrorists. We don't need Patriot Act I or Patriot Act II to protect us. We don't need ground invasions of sovereign nations to protect us either. But, the administration used the fears of our citizenry to get all these things done. "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."
Never go to a DZ strip show.
benny 0
The funny thing is, and David Kay said it himself, Iraq was becoming more dangerous because Saddam was losing power... Ansar al Islam, that northern Iraqi terrorist group, was no friend of Saddam's, and it is likely that as the 'Flinger has pointed out, the NFZ probably protected them.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
QuoteQuoteGM, I hope you have actually read some stuff about that Sudan wanting to hand Osama over thing and realize that it wasn't quite as simple as "here take him" and "no we don't want him." I know you have but you don't present the whole story here.
Benny, please report to Prof. Kallend for a lecture on where the buck stops.
HAHAHAH
!www.FourWheelerHB.com
QuoteOne simple thing could have prevented 9-11, coordinate the "do not allow to fly" list with the list of suspected terrorists. We don't need Patriot Act I or Patriot Act II to protect us.
The Patriot Act is the law that allows the FBI and the CIA to conduct this "coordination". Before the Patriot Act very little coordination could occur due to the separation of the intel side with the criminal side. Even within the FBI the criminal and intel sides had a hard time coordinating because of this separation. The Patriot Act seems to be a scape goat of the anti everything sect of America. You quote "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" while succumbing to the misinformation spewed by the ACLU and others whose main purpose recently is to make the public fearful of the Patriot Act.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
QuoteThe funny thing is, and David Kay said it himself, Iraq was becoming more dangerous because Saddam was losing power....
I thought Kay was a weapons inspector, not a political guru.
never pull low......unless you are
benny 0
Quote
The Patriot Act is the law that allows the FBI and the CIA to conduct this "coordination". Before the Patriot Act very little coordination could occur due to the separation of the intel side with the criminal side. Even within the FBI the criminal and intel sides had a hard time coordinating because of this separation. The Patriot Act seems to be a scape goat of the anti everything sect of America. You quote "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" while succumbing to the misinformation spewed by the ACLU and others whose main purpose recently is to make the public fearful of the Patriot Act.
Hmm, well, considering that the linking of two lists, databases if you will, is all that would have been necessary, why is it that they had to throw in all that other stuff about library records etc.. This is stuff which not only libs find frightening. I know plenty of gun-toting good ole boys who don't think the government has any business knowing what they read or what they buy.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Library records could be obtained with a Grand Jury Subpeona or a National Security Letter before the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act altered the types of cases that can be tried in a FISA court.
Just for jollys, explain to me all of the changes that the Patriot Act brought about.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
Just for jollys, explain to me all of the changes that the Patriot Act brought about.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
benny 0
QuoteLibrary records could be obtained with a Grand Jury Subpeona or a National Security Letter before the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act altered the types of cases that can be tried in a FISA court.
Just for jollys, explain to me all of the changes that the Patriot Act brought about.
Hah, you're the big defender of it, just for jollies why don't you explain them?
I don't think either of us would do a very good job of it. I've perused it and well, I think trained lawyers would be confused, of course it was probably set up that way on purpose. Really though, if a simple cross-reference of to previously established gov't databases could have prevented the attacks, why do we need all that other shit?Never go to a DZ strip show.
TheAnvil 0
Benny I am utterly amazed at your posts in this thread. Then again, my amazement might stem from my shock at crapflinger's entry into a political thread. I digress.
Your attempt at equating Kosovo to GWB's Iraqi policy is astoundingly naive - not even third or fourth order thinking - as compared to some of your previous posts in the forums. Though I disagree with you almost a perfect 100% of the time, they at least had some form of thought behind them. Sometimes at any rate. In case all of your previous posts were intellectual flukes, allow TheAnvil to pass on this bit of info to you: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COOKIE CUTTER WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY.
Kosovo was Weasley Clark's chance to shine and he shone as brightly as my dirty carpet. It was also a demonstration of the laziness of the Europeans when it comes to their own security and a testament to the ineptitude of the Clinton adminstration's foreign policy team. No direct US economic interest whatsoever. European interest - you bet! US interest - indirect via the Europeans.
Iraq is a completely different foreign policy paradigm. Get a grip and don't compare the two. For the record, I disagreed with GWB's Iraqi-centric foreign policy, though I do see some of the merit of his actions. Still don't and will NEVER agree with his second tax cut's structure.
I digress again.
Beers to all,
Vinny the Anvil
Your attempt at equating Kosovo to GWB's Iraqi policy is astoundingly naive - not even third or fourth order thinking - as compared to some of your previous posts in the forums. Though I disagree with you almost a perfect 100% of the time, they at least had some form of thought behind them. Sometimes at any rate. In case all of your previous posts were intellectual flukes, allow TheAnvil to pass on this bit of info to you: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COOKIE CUTTER WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY.
Kosovo was Weasley Clark's chance to shine and he shone as brightly as my dirty carpet. It was also a demonstration of the laziness of the Europeans when it comes to their own security and a testament to the ineptitude of the Clinton adminstration's foreign policy team. No direct US economic interest whatsoever. European interest - you bet! US interest - indirect via the Europeans.
Iraq is a completely different foreign policy paradigm. Get a grip and don't compare the two. For the record, I disagreed with GWB's Iraqi-centric foreign policy, though I do see some of the merit of his actions. Still don't and will NEVER agree with his second tax cut's structure.
I digress again.
Beers to all,
Vinny the Anvil
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
QuoteHah, you're the big defender of it, just for jollies why don't you explain them?
That is my point. You don't know what the Patriot Act changed but you still attack it as unnecessary.
The Patriot Act basically took the rules for Espionage cases and applied them to terrorist cases.
In espionage cases the subject had to be the agent of a foreign power, ie a spy or a US citizen that had been recruited by a foreign spy to work for the foreign power, in order to open a FISA case. On espionage cases the FBI and CIA were able to exchange information freely with no barriers because they weren't criminal cases. The normal things that would have occurred in an open court were moved to a FISA court. A FISA court basically follows the same rules as an open court except all of the judges, lawyers, etc have Top Secret security clearances, the court is held in a vault, and the judge handles things that would normally be handled by a jury.
The Patriot act added international terrorism to the list of offenses that could be tried in the FISA court. To open a terrorism investigation in a FISA court the subject has to be the agent of a foreign power or forein group. IOW domestic terrorism cannot be investigated using a FISA court. The group has to be based overseas.
Now the CIA and FBI can exchange information freely when it involves an international terrorism case. In the past, basically since Watergate, the FBI and CIA were not permitted to exchange information freely on criminal matters. It could be done but the laws made it cumbersome and extremely slow. The Patriot Act streamlined the process.
That is the Patriot Act in a nutshell.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
benny 0
QuoteBenny I am utterly amazed at your posts in this thread. Then again, my amazement might stem from my shock at crapflinger's entry into a political thread. I digress.
Your attempt at equating Kosovo to GWB's Iraqi policy is astoundingly naive - not even third or fourth order thinking - as compared to some of your previous posts in the forums. Though I disagree with you almost a perfect 100% of the time, they at least had some form of thought behind them. Sometimes at any rate. In case all of your previous posts were intellectual flukes, allow TheAnvil to pass on this bit of info to you: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COOKIE CUTTER WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY.
Kosovo was Weasley Clark's chance to shine and he shone as brightly as my dirty carpet. It was also a demonstration of the laziness of the Europeans when it comes to their own security and a testament to the ineptitude of the Clinton adminstration's foreign policy team. No direct US economic interest whatsoever. European interest - you bet! US interest - indirect via the Europeans.
Iraq is a completely different foreign policy paradigm. Get a grip and don't compare the two. For the record, I disagreed with GWB's Iraqi-centric foreign policy, though I do see some of the merit of his actions. Still don't and will NEVER agree with his second tax cut's structure.
I digress again.
Beers to all,
Vinny the Anvil
I'm glad I'm able to amaze you Anvil.
Now, you have a very valid point that there is no such thing as cookie cutter foreign policy. Every situation should be analyzed and dealt with accordingly. You also made another really good point about Kosovo, the US had no economic interest there (so it must have been for other, non-economic reasons that we got involved). Well, there's that whole NATO thing, oh yeah, forgot about them, and then the fact that this region was the origin of two, count em two world wars. No, no security concerns there, never.
Ahem, but the real reason I bring Kosovo up is that when all the other reasons, WMD, terrorism, oil... melt away, what are we left with? Well, it's now the Republican rallying cry that we're freeing those poor people from that evil tyrrant who was killing his own people. Where were these guys when we stopped ongoing genocide in Kosovo? Saying how wrong it was to risk our boys' lives there. That's where. I'm not saying that the two are the same but it does reinforce the sense that those who were behind the decision to attack Iraq had ulterior motives.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
It was called saddam hussein
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites